A federal judicial panel has ordered nearly 180 government lawsuits filed against opioid manufacturers and distributors to be transferred to a judge in Ohio.

Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation means that all federal lawsuits brought by cities, counties, states and other governmental units over the opioid crisis will be sent to U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of the Northern District of Ohio, a 1998 appointee of President Bill Clinton.

The panel, in an unusually lengthy opinion, found common facts among all the cases.

“All of the actions can be expected to implicate common fact questions to the allegedly improper marketing and widespread diversion of prescription opioids into states, counties and cities across the nation, and discovery likely will be voluminous,” wrote panel chairwoman Sarah Vance. “Although individualized factual issues may arise in each action, such issues do not—especially at this early stage of litigation—negate the efficiencies to be gained by centralization.”

The panel suggested that Polster could establish separate tracks in the MDL or, in some circumstances, remand certain cases. “As this litigation progresses, it may become apparent that certain types of actions or claims could be more efficiently handled in the actions 'respective transferor courts,'” Vance wrote.

The ruling is a big win for a team of plaintiffs lawyers led by West Virginia attorney James Peterson of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, Russell Budd of Baron & Budd and Mike Papantonio of Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor.

“I think Judge Polster will be a great judge for this case,” said Baron & Budd's Burton LeBlanc, whose team has pushed for U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus of the Southern District of Ohio or U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle of the Southern District of Illinois.

Most other plaintiffs firms had supported an MDL, though in other districts, and some opposed transferring the cases—at least, immediately.

Opioids, prescription painkillers including Percocet and OxyContin, have surged in cases of addiction and overdoses, and have been linked to more than 183,000 deaths from 1999 to 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The five primary opioid manufacturers—Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceutical Ltd., Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc. and Allergan—all supported an MDL but in Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania.

Three distributors, AmerisourceBergen Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and McKesson Corp., wanted the cases to go to U.S. District Judge David Faber of the Southern District of West Virginia.

Other venues under consideration were in courts in Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.

In selecting Ohio, the panel noted the state's “strong factual connection to this litigation, given that it has experienced a significant rise in the number of opioid-related overdoses in the past several years and expended significant sums in dealing with the effects of the opioid epidemic.”

Stay up-to-speed on mass torts and multi-district litigation with Critical Mass, Law.com's all-new briefing by Amanda Bronstad. Learn more and sign up here.

A federal judicial panel has ordered nearly 180 government lawsuits filed against opioid manufacturers and distributors to be transferred to a judge in Ohio.

Tuesday's ruling by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation means that all federal lawsuits brought by cities, counties, states and other governmental units over the opioid crisis will be sent to U.S. District Judge Dan Polster of the Northern District of Ohio, a 1998 appointee of President Bill Clinton.

The panel, in an unusually lengthy opinion, found common facts among all the cases.

“All of the actions can be expected to implicate common fact questions to the allegedly improper marketing and widespread diversion of prescription opioids into states, counties and cities across the nation, and discovery likely will be voluminous,” wrote panel chairwoman Sarah Vance. “Although individualized factual issues may arise in each action, such issues do not—especially at this early stage of litigation—negate the efficiencies to be gained by centralization.”

The panel suggested that Polster could establish separate tracks in the MDL or, in some circumstances, remand certain cases. “As this litigation progresses, it may become apparent that certain types of actions or claims could be more efficiently handled in the actions 'respective transferor courts,'” Vance wrote.

The ruling is a big win for a team of plaintiffs lawyers led by West Virginia attorney James Peterson of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, Russell Budd of Baron & Budd and Mike Papantonio of Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor.

“I think Judge Polster will be a great judge for this case,” said Baron & Budd's Burton LeBlanc, whose team has pushed for U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus of the Southern District of Ohio or U.S. District Judge Staci Yandle of the Southern District of Illinois.

Most other plaintiffs firms had supported an MDL, though in other districts, and some opposed transferring the cases—at least, immediately.

Opioids, prescription painkillers including Percocet and OxyContin, have surged in cases of addiction and overdoses, and have been linked to more than 183,000 deaths from 1999 to 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The five primary opioid manufacturers—Purdue Pharma, Teva Pharmaceutical Ltd., Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc. and Allergan—all supported an MDL but in Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania.

Three distributors, AmerisourceBergen Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and McKesson Corp., wanted the cases to go to U.S. District Judge David Faber of the Southern District of West Virginia.

Other venues under consideration were in courts in Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.

In selecting Ohio, the panel noted the state's “strong factual connection to this litigation, given that it has experienced a significant rise in the number of opioid-related overdoses in the past several years and expended significant sums in dealing with the effects of the opioid epidemic.”

Stay up-to-speed on mass torts and multi-district litigation with Critical Mass, Law.com's all-new briefing by Amanda Bronstad. Learn more and sign up here.